Srimad BhagavadGita

Chapter 3 Karma Yogaḥ: Introduction Nārāyaṇa the Paramapuruṣa, who is the goal of a seeker of mokṣa is the Paramātma who is endorsed and glorified as the supreme in the vedās and the upabṛhmaṇaṃs. brahmavid āpnoti param Taittirīya Āraṇyaka 1 (One who knows Brahman achieves that which is the greatest and the highest) eṣa samprasādo'smāccharīrātsamutthāya paraṃ jyotirupasampadya svena rūpeṇābhiniṣpadyate Chāndogya Up 8.3.4 ( This jīvā journeys out of his body, attains Nārāyaṇa who is the paraṃjyoti and his original inherent nature manifests) rasaṃ hy evāyaṃ labdhvānandī bhavati Taittiriya Āraṇyaka 7 (This jīvā attains the Paramātma who is bliss personified and becomes blissful) paramaṃ sāmyam upaiti Munḍaka Up 3.1.3 (The jīvā attains the highest similarity to Paramātma) There are more than 100 such statements and aphorisms in the vedās as well as the smṛtīs which are in line with the vedās, where it is clearly stated that even after the attainment of mokṣa, difference exists between Paramātma and the jīvātmās. Therefore it is apt to say that Paramātma is ‘the attained’ and the jīvā is ‘the attainer’. Most vedic statements declare this Paramātma as saguṇa (having countless auspicious qualities) while there are some that describe HIM as ‘nirguṇa’ to emphasise that Paramapuruṣa does not possess even a single abominable quality like ignorance, etc. that arise in a jīvā due to the play of the three guṇās of material nature namely sattva, rajas and tamas. This clears the scope for a contradiction between the statements describing him as saguṇa and nirguṇa. It is this Paramātma who is described as the cause of the entire universe by the causal statements in the scriptures. The śodhaka statements (which describe the inherent nature) in the vedās like satyaṃ jñānaṃ anantaṃ brahma describe HIS inherent divine nature. Statements like nārāyaṇa paraṃ brahma, declare him to be Parabrahmaṃ. Other statements from the vedās announce that HE is the creator of everything and he himself becomes this world now and even earlier. From all of these statements it is explicit that Paramātma is the material cause of this entire universe like mud is to a pot and He is the instrumental/efficient cause of the universe like the potter is for the pot. This is explained as follows. During the period of deluge, he alone exists with the inseparable sentient jīvā and the non-sentient matter in the subtle state within HIM. At the time of creation HE manifests these subtle sentient jīvās and non-sentient matter which are a part of HIM into gross entities with distinct names and forms thus becoming the the material cause of the universe just like mud is the material cause for the creation of a pot and the efficient cause of the universe just like the potter becomes the efficient cause for the creation of the pot. Therefore at the time of creation too HE alone exists with the inseparable sentient jīvās and non-sentient matter in the gross, manifest state. As per the aphorism pūrvapadāt saṃjñāyāmagaḥ, the word Nārāyaṇa which is used to refer to HIM in the vedās and śāstrās is a proper noun, hence it can be used exclusively for HIM alone and no other devata. At the same time HE is referred to by the common nouns like sat, brahma, ātma, etc. in innumerable causal statements in the vedās. Therefore it is certain that the one declared as Nārāyaṇa in the statements like eko ha vai nārāyaṇa āsita and the one referred to by the above mentioned common nouns is Paramātma alone. This condemns all the inferences that the three mūrtīs namely Brahma, Viṣṇu, Śiva are the same or that the three mūrtīs are equal in authority or that a Paramātma exists above the three of them or that either Brahma or Śiva is the cause of the universe. HE alone is the Paramapuruṣa and this is declared in the śrutīs (sa uttamaha puruṣaḥ Chāndogya Up 8.12.3) and the Bhagawad Gītā too (uttamaḥ puruṣastvanyaḥ B.G 15.17) Some claim that a combination of jñāna yoga and karma yoga are the means to attain HIM. Others claim karma yoga alone or jñāna yoga alone to be the means. All of these claims are invalid. It has been stated in great detail in vedānta that bhakti yoga with jñāna and karma as its limbs is the only means to attain the Paramapuruṣa. It is bhakti alone which is referred to in multiple places by both common and specific terms like brahmavedā, puruṣaṃvedā for vedanaṃ (knowing), upāsīta for upāsana (worship) and dhyāyāth for dhyāna (meditation). Statements like vedāhametaṃ - nānyaḥpanthā vidyateyanāya also declare that bhakti alone is the means to reach him and not jñāna or karma discussed earlier. Bhakti is exclusive to Paramapuruṣa who is the means as well as the goal and not meant for the worship of other devatās or the fulfilment of other purposes. brahmāṇaṃ śitikaṇthaṃca yāścānyā devatāḥ smṛthāḥ| pratibuddhā na sevante yasmāt parimitaṃ phalam Mahābhārataṃ śānti Parva 350-36 (The jñānīs do not worship Brahma, Śiva or other devatās because the rewards obtained from them are limited) It is told in the Mahabharata too that a seeker of mokṣa must give up on other devatās and other rewards. In the Bhagavad Gītā too this topic appears in the later chapters as bhaktyā tvannyayā B.G 11.58 and mayi cānanya-yogena bhaktir avyabhicāriṇī B.G 13.10. This bhakti accompanies a jīvā to his state of mokṣa too. Since bhakti has no end to it, it is called ātyantika bhakti. Bhakti is the only thing which starts as a means to mokṣa and keeps growing until the state of mokṣa thus achieving excellence. Kṛṣṇa is going to instruct about this bhakti yoga in the 6 chapters from chapters 7 to 12 which make up the madhyama ṣaṭkaṃ of the Bhagawad Gītā. ya ātmāpahatapāpmā Chāndogya Up 8.7.1 These are the starting words of Prajāpati’s instructions to Indra regarding realisation of the soul (a vision of the original nature of the soul as is). Chapter 2 of the Bhagawad Gītā concluded with the knowledge from Kṛṣṇa that Karma yoga (performing karmās equipped with the knowledge about the real nature of the soul without any hold on them) leads to jñāna yoga (which is the process of becoming establiṣed in the soul state) which in turn leads to soul realisation. This soul realisation is said to be a limb of bhakti toward Bhagawān. It is so for the following reasons. The khandās 1 to 6 of the 8th prapāṭhaka of Chāndogya upaniṣad talk about Dahara vidya (one of the 32 brahma vidyās prescribed for meditating on Bhagawān) in great detail. In the 7th khanda, starting with the words sa sarvāṃśca lokānāpnoti sarvāṃśca kāmānyastamātmānamanuvidya vijānātīti ha prajāpatiruvāca Chāndogya Up 8.7.1 (The one who knows about the soul from the śāstrās and meditates on it, attains all the worlds and all his desires are fulfilled) Prajāpati describes the Pratyagātma vidya. Indra among the devatās and Virocanā among the rākṣasās approach Prajāpati to know about the nature of this wonderful soul. Prajāpati first instructed them that the reflection they saw in the water itself was the soul and sent them back. Virocanā was content with this answer. However Indra was not convinced that the reflection of this body was the blissful soul. So he went back to Prajāpati and expressed his dissatisfaction with the answer. This sequence of Prajāpati’s answer and Indrā’s dissatisfaction continued for answers that what he sees in the state of dream is the soul, what he sees in the state of awakening is the soul, what he sees in the state of deep sleep is the soul. Prajāpati Brahma was then convinced that Indra was qualified to receive the knowledge about the soul. He started his instruction with the words aśarīraṃ vāva santaṃ na priyāpriye spṛśataḥ Chāndogya Up 8.12.1 (One who does not have a body which is received on account of karma, is free from the experience of pleasure and pain) thus instructing Indra about the original nature of the pure soul and with the words samutthāya paraṃ jyotirupasampadya svena rūpeṇābhiniṣpadyante Chāndogya Up 8.12.2 (In this way upon leaving this body, the jīvā attains the paraṃjyoti and acquires his original nature) he spoke about the final reward of this soul realisation. This statement by Prajāpati is in the Dahara vidya chapter where Paramātma alone is declared to be the ultimate reward of soul realisation. If it is assumed that the only means to attain Paramātma is as a reward of soul realisation then the below statements will get contradicted. - The tat-kratu nyāya yathopāsanaṃ phalam (one who is worshipped is attained as the reward of that worship). - vedāhametam puruṣam mahāntam | nānyaḥ panthā vidyate ayanāya Puruṣa sūktam (I worship this mahāpuruṣā, there is no other way to attain mokṣa) Worshipping Paramapuruṣa is the only way to attain HIM. The words paraṃ jyotirupasampadya mean that he is attaining the paraṃ jyoti. Since Nārāyaṇa is referred to as paraṃ jyoti in the first statement of Dahara vidya (8.3.4) and also in other vedic statements like nārāyaṇaparojyotiḥ, it cannot be claimed that paraṃ jyoti refers to the jīvātma (soul) and that the reward talked about is the attainment of the jīvātma. Moreover, since the jīvātma is the attainer, Paramātma who is to be attained must be distinct from him. After attaining Paramātma, just like the eternally liberated jīvās, this jīvā too experiences freedom from bondage, unlimited happiness, misery free state, etc. Therefore, it is certain that attaining the jīvātma is not the ultimate reward. In the upaniṣad, other than the reward stated for Dahara vidya, no separate reward has been mentioned for Pratyagātma vidya which has been described along with Dahara vidya. Based on the pūrvamīmāmsā nyāya phalavat sannidhāvaphalamaṃ tadaṇgam (that which does not yield any reward when stated alongside something which yields a reward, ṣould be known to be its aṅgam or limb) when Pratyagātma vidya which has no specific reward attached to it is stated alongside Dahara vidya which has attainment of Paramātma as its reward, it must be understood that it is a limb of Dahara vidya. On Similar lines, it can be concluded that soul realisation which does not have a specific reward stated for it is a limb of bhakti yoga whose reward is attainment of Paramātma. The kaṭha Upaniṣad is said to be an upabṛhṃhyam of the Bhagawad Gītā as it contains many statements like na jāyate mriyate…similar in meaning to the ślokās of the Bhagawad Gītā. It can be concluded from the kaṭha Upaniṣad too that soul realisation is a limb of bhakti. adhyātmayogādhigamena devaṃ matvā dhīro harṣaśokau jahāti kaṭha Up 1.2.12 (By concentrating the mind on the soul entity in a consistent manner, one attains soul realisation and as a reward of soul realisation he performs Paramapuruṣa’s bhakti renouncing the pleasures and pain of this material world). Here, if it is assumed that the word adhyātmayogādhigamena itself refers to ‘knowledge about Paramātma’ then the words devam matvā cannot be referring to the ‘knowledge about Paramātma’ obtained as a result of it the same ‘knowledge about Paramātma’. The word ‘yogaṃ’ does not refer to the knowledge obtained from the śāstrās, therefore adhyātmayogādhigamena cannot be considered to mean ‘knowledge obtained from the śāstrās’. More reasons for not considering this meaning are as follows. (sāstreṇa) devaṃ matvā adhyātmayogādhigamena (After knowing about Paramātma from the śāstrās, with this knowledge he is renouncing the pleasures and pain of this material words) If the meaning is considered in this way, then the defects like prose order getting jumbled and *adhyāharam will arise. Along with Paramātma, the jīvātma is also discussed in this chapter of kaṭha Upaniṣad. Therefore it is apt to interpret the meaning as ‘For ‘devaṃ matvā’ which is the para vidyā follows, For ‘devaṃ matvā’ which is the knowledge of the supreme, ‘adhyātmayogādhigamena’ which is the realisation of the soul is its limb. In this chapter of kaṭhavalli, starting with na jāyate mriyate vā kadāchit 2.18 (The jīvā is neither taking birth nor dying), the nature of the soul is described in great detail. With the mantra aṇoraṇīyān… 2.20 (Paramātma is smaller than the smallest), the nature of Paramātma is described. With mahāntaṃ vibhumātmānaṃ matvā dhīro na śocati 2.22 (one who worships the majestic Paramātma is not susceptible to grief), the worship is talked about. With nāyamātmā pravacanena labhyo na medhayā na bahunā śrutena yamevaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyastasyaiṣa ātmā vivṛṇute tanūṃ svām 2.23 (This Paramātma cannot be attained merely by contemplating, meditating and hearing about HIM. The devotee whom HE chooses is attainable by HIM. HE reveals himself only to him), the worship is described to be full of bhakti (devotion) as stated by the words snehapūrvamanudhyānaṃ bhaktirityabhidhīyate (loving remembrance is called bhakti). With vijñāna sāradhiryastu manaḥ pragrahavān naraḥ | sodhvanaḥ pāramāpnoti tadviṣṇoḥ paramam padam 1.3.9 (The man who has a discriminating intellect as the driver and a controlling mind as the reins, reaches the other coast from this world, which is Viṣṇu’s, abode called paramapadam), the discussion is concluded by declaring the reward of para vidya (knowledge of Paramātma) which is the attainment of Paramātma. Thus in kaṭha Upaniṣad too, it is seen that bhakti which has ‘attainment of Paramātma’ as its reward is described and in between, contemplation on the soul and its realisation is described. This soul realisation which leads to bhakti and is without any other reward for itself is clearly seen to be a limb of bhakti. Therefore in the Bhagawad Gītā too which is an upabṛhmaṇaṃ (elaboration) of kaṭha Upaniṣad soul realisation is said to be a limb of bhakti. Now starting with the 3rd chapter of Bhagawad Gītā up to the 6th chapter, in these four chapters, soul realisation along with it’s means which are karma and jñāna are discussed in great detail. Note: adhyāharam is when a new word is added to interpret the meaning due to lack of completeness in meaning of the existing statement.